92043451.

doc

Dartmouth 2K9

2AC Coercion (1/4)

1. Case outweighs we access the only solvable internal link to extinction. [Explain advantage impact/internal link] Even if coercion in the abstract is bad, it shouldnt be the first priority in politics the plan results in something positive for the world. 2. The role of a policy maker is to evaluate consequences first obsessions with moral purity plunge the neg into an infinite regression Isaac, PhD.Yale, Prof. PoliSci Indiana-Bloomington, dir. Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, 02
(Jeffrey C. Isaac, PhD.Yale, Prof. PoliSci Indiana-Bloomington, dir. Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, Spring 2002, End, Means, and Politics, Dissent Magazine, vol. 49, no. 2)

unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of ones intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with good may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of good that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that ones goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an

3. Perm do the plan and reject coercive politics. The alt is only possible in a world of policy action. Harvey, J.D. Yale, 02
(Philip Harvey, J.D. Yale, Spring 2002, Human Rights and Economic Policy Discourse: Taking Economic and Social Rights Seriously, 33 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 353) Perhaps the clearest illustration of this compromise or balancing principle is the distinction drawn in constitutional jurisprudence between the standard of review applied by courts in deciding whether legislative enactments comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws that do not infringe on certain constitutionally

protected rights will pass muster if there is a mere rational basis for their enactment, whereas laws that do infringe on such rights require more compelling justification, with the level of justification varying depending on the right at issue. 196 Human rights claims have bite precisely because they declare that certain actions may be improper, even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population, indeed, even if the actions in question would increase the total utility of the population as a whole. But it is not necessary to take the position that rights-based claims should always trump conflicting utility-maximizing purposes. 197 It should be possible to honor multiple goals in public policy decision-making.

Last printed

92043451.doc

Dartmouth 2K9

2AC Coercion (2/4)

4. Emperically denied make them prove one instance when governmental social service created genocidal policies. 5. Environment Objectivism dooms humanity to environmental destruction and exploitation Michael Swierczek, 2007 , Another experience with Objectivism and
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/swierczek_1.html
-=Max Rispoli=-

Libertarian

ideas.,

1/28

When discussing the economy in Capitalism, Ayn Rand postulates that recessions and depressions are always the result of government interference with capitalism. She also believed gold should be an objective monetary standard. The case can be argued to use precious metals as money. Even if this will lessen the chances of economic turmoil, it can not guarantee stability. This is a statement of hope, not fact. If there is a drought, farmers will starve. If there is a fire,

That tactic occurs more than once in Objectivist and Libertarian literature: assuming laissez-faire capitalism will solve for a problem simply because no counterexample exists. Another example is monopoly. Ayn Rand states that, in true capitalism without government interference, an abusive monopoly is impossible. Of course, since such a system hasnt existed, no one may offer a counterexample. I would like to pose a hypothetical one: addictive narcotics. Assume crest starts placing nicotine and heroin in its toothpaste. With no government interference, they have no need to label their products or use a disclaimer. If other toothpaste manufacturers follow suit, in a few years were all hooked on nicotine toothpaste. If not, Crest has a coercive monopoly. Either way, nothing an Objectivist or Libertarian would call illegal has happened, but an evil has been done. Consider environmentalism. This is where I first found a weakness in Objectivism. Ayn Rand, and other Libertarians, made extensive use of the Straw Man logical fallacy in this arena. To use this fallacy, a person sets up a weaker version of the argument and disproves it. Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and Libertarians do this by comparing all environmentists to people who want to preserve forests for the sake of the spotted owl. That scenario is not the prime motivator for most environmentalists. The primary issues for most environmentalists include toxic chemical dumping, depletion of natural resources, and global warming. Objectivists and Libertarians do allow the survivors and relatives to sue companies that dump toxic
people will be unemployed. If a disease ravages an area, the economy will suffer.

wastes illegally. This is small consolation to the dead. Existing non-laissez-faire regulations attempt to discourage such dumping before people die, not after the damage is done. Look at the depletion of resources. Government-

regulated fisheries and hunting preserves maintain population levels sufficient to replenish themselves as time goes on. Unregulated fisheries and hunting grounds are rendered barren by extensive over-harvesting. The initial capitalist gain is higher, but in the long run much valuable material is lost. Finally, global warming is a tremendous issue. Animals, humans, and human industry consume oxygen and carbon to produce carbon dioxide. Plants and plankton consume carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and carbon. The number of humans and the amount of human industry is increasing geometrically. The amount of plants, trees, and plankton are being decreased geometrically. Eventually in ten, fifty, five hundred, of ten thousand years, the effects will be felt. When is not important, because Libertarianism and Objectivism possess ZERO governing mechanisms for slowing this change. There is no deterrent to stop
a laissez-faire industry from burning garbage now, and there wont be one in three thousand years. If something is to be done, it must be done now. Even if you dispute global warming and that can only be done by refusing to acknowledge facts you cannot deny increase rates of skin cancer, lung cancer, and other lung diseases. Unregulated pollution of

any sort has a definite negative effect. There are no Libertarian or Objectivist solutions to these issues, except the handy ostrich tactic of sticking your head in the ground and refusing to acknowledge them.

Last printed

92043451.doc

Dartmouth 2K9

2AC Coercion (3/4)

Environmental destruction leads to extinction. Diner, 1994 (Major David N, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, l/n) humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
By causing widespread extinctions, dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined

affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging
closer to the abyss.

6. The state is inevitable the alternative fails to get rid of it. Linear impacts are stupid because coercive policies will always continue to the extent the plan only produces a marginal effect on overall coercion. 7. No impact democratic majority rule checks the worst forms of coercion Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism Polity
Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor]

Hardin contends that coercion is the only remedy. As a safeguard against arbitrary coerion, he prescribes "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected." 45 Presumably, majority rule will reduce the possibility of arbitrariness since it will merely coerce the minority to behave in ways that will not destroy the commons. 8. Utilitarian framework inevitable policy makers will always look for whats in the best interest of the people. The alternative doesnt shift that mindset. 9. Genocide objectivism justifies dehumanization that turns the impact Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date
(Michael Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date, WHY I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST, http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#5) What enables egoists to make replies like this is that it is almost impossible to assess the probabilities of all these possibilities in any definitive manner. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that, on the egoist's view, the fact that the other

person is a sentient being, with a life of his own, is not what counts . All that counts is that he has a potential to serve my life, or to hamper it if I destroy him. Therefore, how I treat him need not be, in principle, any different from the way I treat inanimate objects. Sure, if there's a heap of trash lying on the sidewalk, it's possible that the heap of trash
will someday be useful for something. It's also possible that destroying it will have some negative effects on me. Some insane trashlover might get mad at me, though I have no reason to think that this is so. But none of this would prevent me from removing a heap of trash that I found on the sidewalk, if it was getting in my way. You don't save just anything that might be useful. If egoism is

true, I should take exactly the same fundamental attitude towards other human beings as to inanimate objects: if I decide that the likelihood of their being useful to me is sufficiently low and the likelihood of my suffering ill effects of destroying them also sufficiently low, then I will go ahead and remove them. Every day I throw away

Last printed

92043451.doc

Dartmouth 2K9

2AC Coercion (4/4)

objects that have more likelihood of being useful to me some day than a homeless person on the street does. Every day I take actions, like crossing the street, that involve more risk to my person than is involved in destroying the homeless man in my hypothetical example. But even if the egoist is able to think of some very plausible harm that I would be likely to suffer from

killing another person, I will just modify the example to remove it. In other words, I stipulate that the homeless guy is not a potential client of my company, he is not going to get a job, he does not have a gang of friends to defend him, the passers-by on the street will not be angry with me, etc. And the question is, then does it seem that it's right to kill him? 10. No internal link theres no reason why the plan would spillover to total governmental control over lives. Make them prove a link story. 11. Utilitarianism prevents nuclear war Ratner, professor of law at USC, 1984 (Leonard G. Ratner p.758, professor of law at USC, 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. The
Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy, Reciprocity, and Evolution HeinOnline) Without effective reciprocity, self-defense is the only survival remedy. Passive resistance to a Hitler has survival costs that are acceptable to few communities. Rejection of those costs is perhaps being accommodated with the intolerable survival costs of nuclear warfare by payment of more immediate nuclear-deterrence costs. Negotiations to reduce the nucleardeterrence costs confront the participants with a predicament like the "prisone1s dilemma"' if nuclear weapons can escape detection: although both participants would benefit from a reduction, each is impelled to increase its nuclear weapons as protection against an undetected increase by the other. But each may also be impelled to refrain from their use. If that accommodation fails, so may the evolutionary process. While the accommodation holds, nonnuclear self defense

re- mains the survival remedy pending a reciprocity solution. The survival costs of nonnuclear warfare of course continue to be high, but when the survival costs of capitulation are perceived as exceeding them, compensation for combatants commensurate with risk would provide a kind of market accommodation for those induced thereby to volunteer and would reduce the disproportionate wartime-con-scription assessment.

Last printed

92043451.doc

Dartmouth 2K9

1AR Ext. 8 Util Inevitable

A. Rights Conflicts Stelzig, 98
(Tim Stelzig, DEONTOLOGY, GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTIVE EXEMPTION: HOW THE TROLLEY PROBLEM SHAPES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS AND POLICY, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, March 1998, Vol. 146, Issue 3, Ebsco)

deontological norms do not exhaust morality. If the former is correct, because rights claims may be overridden only when substantially more good will resul t-Thomson's Tradeoff Idea (107)--then almost every situation will involve a true conflict of rights. Determining the resolution of these rights-conflicts would require that morality be supplemented with principles other than rights. If this is correct, rights would perform relatively little theoretic work beyond triggering these principles. Whatever principles would be regularly invoked for resolving rights-conflicts would do the bulk of the work of determining right action. Such a notion does not sit well with the claim that deontology
If the latter is true, no more need be said to show that exhausts morality, for the reasons already discussed. (108)

B. Crisis Conditions Scarre,96

(Lecturer Philosophy University of Durham, 1996, Utilitarianism)

Utilitarian thinking about killing seems then, most intuitively acceptable to many people during public emergencies. When societys very survival is in question, the niceties of normal moral thought are found to be dispensable. Even medical cannibalism might be seen as tolerable if no other mean were available to save certain individuals who were crucial to a nations war effort. If Black was designing the weapon which would ensure his countrys victory and White were its most brilliant general, not only their survival might depend upon Green losing his kidneys. Cruel necessities may seem no less cruel but they seem more necessary when the chips are down for the whole community.

Last printed